After looking at the 2013 Broncos 16 different ways I am convinced that fumbles by ball carriers--RBs, pass targets, kick returners--are like Kryptonite to a team that wants to score some points through the air in the post season. And of course, some regular season games have that post season aura when the best teams face each other.

There are certain risks inherent to passing the ball. The QB is vulnerable handling and releasing the ball while looking down field. Plus, it's almost impossible to entirely eliminate certain types of miscues--bad luck tips and zebra malfunction.

The rushing phase has to be Mr. Reliable for the whole thing to work. The worst case scenario should be a small yardage loss, and that should only happen rarely. With a much smaller margin for error in the post season, there's no room for fumbles.

It also plays into the psychology of QB confidence. If you want to convince your HOF old guy QB (who happens to make all the final play calls at the line) that he needs to call rushing plays in certain types of critical situations then your RBs better stop putting the @##(*%*#ing rock on the ground.

Last edited by retro-grouch on March 28th, 2014, 11:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

After looking at the 2013 Broncos 16 different ways I am convinced that fumbles by ball carriers--RBs, pass targets, kick returners and the *QB--are like Kryptonite to a team that wants to score some points through the air in the post season. And of course, some regular season games have that post season aura when the best teams face each other.

There are certain risks inherent to passing the ball. The QB is vulnerable handling and releasing the ball while looking down field. Plus, it's almost impossible to entirely eliminate certain types of miscues--bad luck tips and zebra malfunction.

The rushing phase has to be Mr. Reliable for the whole thing to work. With a much smaller margin for error in the post season, there's no room for fumbles.

It also plays into the psychology of QB confidence. If you want to convince your HOF old guy QB (who happens to make all the final play calls at the line) to call more rushing plays then your RBs better stop putting the @##(*%*#ing rock on the ground.

*Peyton fumbled the ball 10 times, by far the most of all players on the Broncos. He lost 6 and 1 was turned into a safety in the Colts game.

After looking at the 2013 Broncos 16 different ways I am convinced that fumbles by ball carriers--RBs, pass targets, kick returners and the *QB--are like Kryptonite to a team that wants to score some points through the air in the post season. And of course, some regular season games have that post season aura when the best teams face each other.

There are certain risks inherent to passing the ball. The QB is vulnerable handling and releasing the ball while looking down field. Plus, it's almost impossible to entirely eliminate certain types of miscues--bad luck tips and zebra malfunction.

The rushing phase has to be Mr. Reliable for the whole thing to work. With a much smaller margin for error in the post season, there's no room for fumbles.

It also plays into the psychology of QB confidence. If you want to convince your HOF old guy QB (who happens to make all the final play calls at the line) to call more rushing plays then your RBs better stop putting the @##(*%*#ing rock on the ground.

*Peyton fumbled the ball 10 times, by far the most of all players on the Broncos. He lost 6 and 1 was turned into a safety in the Colts game.

QB turnovers are a bit complicated. Both INTs and FFs can be the result of pure QB mistakes or they can be the result of other factors, such as blocking problems.

I generally absolve QBs of things that appear to be outside their control, like fast blindside pressure, missed route assignments, missed PI calls, or good passes tipped off the hands of receivers.

My take on Manning is that about half of his fumbles and interceptions are mostly due to factors outside his control. An interesting aside, he does get away with some bad errors, such as DBs plain dropping balls that hit them in the hands.

So about half of his turnovers I chalk up to "risks inherent to the passing game." As for the other half…that is really where the rubber meets the road, just like with the RB fumbles.

In the broad picture, regular season stats, Manning has generally developed world class mistake avoidance. But there have been some strangely bad lapses. One was in Atlanta in 2012, another was in the first half of the Super Bowl. This two games have a certain similarity for me because when I saw those games live I couldn't figure out what was going on in his head. Huge risks early in the game. Why?

Here's how I see it. I was shocked by the whiff on Moreno, but as Retro pointed out, it's easy to make assumptions. I was guilty, and my assumption wasn't even mentioned, so if nothing else I'm creative I assumed Moreno was PFM's security blanket.

Regardless of injuries or anything else, if they are in win it now mode, and PFM wanted Moreno, he'd get him, especially since they'll likely bring in a vet presence anyway.

On the fullback, I have no clue what they SHOULD do, but I can see the case they might go after one. It's obvious they have full trust in Ball and he's the future. This means either they hand him the running game and/or have a competition with CJ (I prefer the latter because I'm nosy). This is all fine except for one small problem: Our "future" carried the ball 6 times for ONE yard in the Super Bowl. Sure, it's just a stat and it's not fair to read too much into it when the ground game became irrelevant by the 2nd Q. But you still don't want to see that. On his insanely small sample of 2 carries, CJ did much better.

So how do you fix this? The obvious answer is run blocking by the OL, but the best run blocking offenses (Texans, Redskins, Eagles, Bucs) utilize a one back system and the focus is on this run support. You can't have a 37 year old rock star in the passing game, and have the passing game be the cornerstone of the team, and then go backwards and try to create good run blocking. I'd also guess -- but this is partly a question -- that it may be more difficult to run block when you have more of a platoon.

I don't remember any concerns at all about run blocking until the second half of the season, when Ball became more prominent. How do you adjust for a good pass catching, pass blocking RB vs the guy who takes it and plows straight ahead? (I realize Ball started catching passes, but it's more about different run styles).

So if they're serious about taking some pressure off Manning by perking up the running game, maybe a fullback is a fallback. *Groan*

Those willing to sacrifice freedom in order to gain security will lose both and deserve neither ...Ben Franklin

After looking at the 2013 Broncos 16 different ways I am convinced that fumbles by ball carriers--RBs, pass targets, kick returners and the *QB--are like Kryptonite to a team that wants to score some points through the air in the post season. And of course, some regular season games have that post season aura when the best teams face each other.

There are certain risks inherent to passing the ball. The QB is vulnerable handling and releasing the ball while looking down field. Plus, it's almost impossible to entirely eliminate certain types of miscues--bad luck tips and zebra malfunction.

The rushing phase has to be Mr. Reliable for the whole thing to work. With a much smaller margin for error in the post season, there's no room for fumbles.

It also plays into the psychology of QB confidence. If you want to convince your HOF old guy QB (who happens to make all the final play calls at the line) to call more rushing plays then your RBs better stop putting the @##(*%*#ing rock on the ground.

*Peyton fumbled the ball 10 times, by far the most of all players on the Broncos. He lost 6 and 1 was turned into a safety in the Colts game.

QB turnovers are a bit complicated. Both INTs and FFs can be the result of pure QB mistakes or they can be the result of other factors, such as blocking problems.

I generally absolve QBs of things that appear to be outside their control, like fast blindside pressure, missed route assignments, missed PI calls, or good passes tipped off the hands of receivers.

My take on Manning is that about half of his fumbles and interceptions are mostly due to factors outside his control. An interesting aside, he does get away with some bad errors, such as DBs plain dropping balls that hit them in the hands.

So about half of his turnovers I chalk up to "risks inherent to the passing game.

I guess I agree with that somewhat. However, if the running game is more integral in the scheme of things, the protection of the QB is usually better, so going forward, I hope Elway is in Peyton's ear about how, until the entire offense worked together, the QB can only get the team so far on his own back.

I think Ball has the ability to be the every down back and load hauler with CJ and Ronnie sharing change of pace duties, but the run game IMO, has to become a threat, not just be an addition to the PFM game plan.

THAT was, as I saw it, the biggest problem in all 4 losses. Those teams attacked Peyton and dared the Broncos to run it. And still, those were the games the run game was most inept (except for the mirage that was the Pats loss).

Inept because the situations when the Broncos ran, were obvious ones and thereby too easily stopped. The offense has to become more stealth, more worrisome to the defense at the LOS.

I think the whole fullback issue is a bit of an over reaction. It would be a great luxury but I think the first thing we need to do is have 2 running backs who can be relied on as ball carriers first. This is what we have had the last 2 years and anything less is a clear step backward. We'll never know the reasons we didn't resign Knowshon. What we do know is that he was the go to back in 2013 and the top blocker for Manning among the backfield players. Before we start thinking luxury items that production needs to be replaced. It would be great to have a couple of proven guys.The Little Guy

Even if it means my death the evil poison of hatred and bigotry which they're trying to spread in the name of Patriotism must be wiped out. Captain America

I think Ball has the ability to be the every down back and load hauler with CJ and Ronnie sharing change of pace duties, but the run game IMO, has to become a threat, not just be an addition to the PFM game plan..

And this is the biggest hope shot on the team right now. This is what we know:CJ is great at pre-season runningRonnie likes to cough up the rock in trafficMontee could never distance himself from Knowshon Moreno of the Miami Dolphins.Everything else is speculation.Let's not fool ourselves into thinking this is Bobby Humphrey or Clinton Portis who 4 or 5 games into their careers grabbed the starting assignments by the throat. I know...I know...some will say the only reason Moreno started over Montee was because of his pass protection. I don't buy it. Sure...I think that may have given Knowshon a slight edge...but if Ball was clearly a devastating rusher with top 5 capability, there is no way he rides pine because of his pass protection unless he was absolutely abysmal at it. If that's the case then letting Knowshon walk was REALLY short sighted.The Little Guy

Even if it means my death the evil poison of hatred and bigotry which they're trying to spread in the name of Patriotism must be wiped out. Captain America

No doubt Manning starts games with more than two mind-sets, but there are two identifiable approaches.

One approach is careful and balanced looking to take what the defense is giving and quite possibly punt the ball while looking for an edge. This approach was very, very unpopular with most fans in two seasons.

The other approach is about airing out the passing game early, even with risk. Sometimes there seems to be a judgement based on preparation that "we're getting at least 35 points and if we throw a pick or two it's not gonna make a lot of difference". This approach has been very popular, except when it blows up, as it did in Atlanta and in SB48.

The two Chiefs games were a fascinating contrast and you could crudely say that after game one, Manning didn't exactly respect KC's defense in the morning. He went to KC two weeks later and just started hucking it, starting with two picks but eventually vaporizing the secondary.

The strange thing is that Manning and Gase don't seem to have a fixed plan for how they approach risk. They play from their own expectations and they've had some great results but the one and done factor has no forgiveness.

Last edited by retro-grouch on March 28th, 2014, 1:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

retro-grouch wrote:The strange thing is that Manning and Gase don't seem to have a fixed plan for how they approach risk. They play from their own expectations and they've had some great results but the one and done factor has no forgiveness.

I agree. I think right now the Broncos are a team that says "we are not worried about what you bring too the table...we are going to do what we do and let the chips fall where they will." It's much like the Broncos of 1996,1997 and 1998 who said " we run the football stop us if you can." Here is the major difference however...the Broncos of the mid 90's could take it in another direction when facing a team that matched up against their strength. Case in point: 1996 San Diego at Denver. The Chargers sold out heavy to stop the run and had TD bottled up for most of the game and built a lead. Elway answered by going almost exclusively to the pass. The result was 3 TD passes to Shannon Sharpe and a 4th to Easy Ed and a resounding comeback win. Seattle matched up well against the pass. The can rush from the corners and up the middle and they can cover. The current Broncos have no answer for such teams.The Little Guy

Even if it means my death the evil poison of hatred and bigotry which they're trying to spread in the name of Patriotism must be wiped out. Captain America

retro-grouch wrote:The strange thing is that Manning and Gase don't seem to have a fixed plan for how they approach risk. They play from their own expectations and they've had some great results but the one and done factor has no forgiveness.

I agree. I think right now the Broncos are a team that says "we are not worried about what you bring too the table...we are going to do what we do and let the chips fall where they will." It's much like the Broncos of 1996,1997 and 1998 who said " we run the football stop us if you can." Here is the major difference however...the Broncos of the mid 90's could take it in another direction when facing a team that matched up against their strength. Case in point: 1996 San Diego at Denver. The Chargers sold out heavy to stop the run and had TD bottled up for most of the game and built a lead. Elway answered by going almost exclusively to the pass. The result was 3 TD passes to Shannon Sharpe and a 4th to Easy Ed and a resounding comeback win. Seattle matched up well against the pass. The can rush from the corners and up the middle and they can cover. The current Broncos have no answer for such teams.The Little Guy

Which is exactly why they need to develop a more physical running game, and a fullback should be viewed as a key piece of that development. I think the size, talent and mentality is there up front with the offensive line and I think the combination of Ball, CJ and Hillman will be just fine. Maybe they bring in another vet for depth and experience, we'll see. But without the ability to shift gears when necessary and play more physical on the offensive side of the ball, I just don't know that this team can get over the hump and finish.

the little guy wrote:I think the whole fullback issue is a bit of an over reaction. It would be a great luxury but I think the first thing we need to do is have 2 running backs who can be relied on as ball carriers first. This is what we have had the last 2 years and anything less is a clear step backward. We'll never know the reasons we didn't resign Knowshon. What we do know is that he was the go to back in 2013 and the top blocker for Manning among the backfield players. Before we start thinking luxury items that production needs to be replaced. It would be great to have a couple of proven guys.The Little Guy

Of course it would be great to have a couple of proven guys....how do guys become proven? By getting opportunities and not letting go, this is exactly how Knowshon suddenly became a valued commodity last season. He was given the opportunity and he played like it was his last chance to stay in the league.

the little guy wrote:I think the whole fullback issue is a bit of an over reaction. It would be a great luxury but I think the first thing we need to do is have 2 running backs who can be relied on as ball carriers first. This is what we have had the last 2 years and anything less is a clear step backward. We'll never know the reasons we didn't resign Knowshon. What we do know is that he was the go to back in 2013 and the top blocker for Manning among the backfield players. Before we start thinking luxury items that production needs to be replaced. It would be great to have a couple of proven guys.The Little Guy

Of course it would be great to have a couple of proven guys....how do guys become proven? By getting opportunities and not letting go, this is exactly how Knowshon suddenly became a valued commodity last season. He was given the opportunity and he played like it was his last chance to stay in the league.

I agree with you in part. But think about it....last year we could not run the ball when we needed too. We just lost the guy who got the lionshare of the carries. Some say Ball is the better runner. Maybe....but obviouly not by a whole lot that it made a differnce to the FO or coaching staff. I think you have the right idea just you priority is off. We need runners before blockers. I don't share your optimism that Ball and Anderson and Hillman will be just fine. I have watched the 2013 regular season games over and over and I see nothing that's special. None of them have home run speed. Ball is a cut above the others....Anderson would do well to be as good as Lance Ball and Hillman.....I have no faith it that guy at all.The Little Guy

Even if it means my death the evil poison of hatred and bigotry which they're trying to spread in the name of Patriotism must be wiped out. Captain America

the little guy wrote:I think the whole fullback issue is a bit of an over reaction. It would be a great luxury but I think the first thing we need to do is have 2 running backs who can be relied on as ball carriers first. This is what we have had the last 2 years and anything less is a clear step backward. We'll never know the reasons we didn't resign Knowshon. What we do know is that he was the go to back in 2013 and the top blocker for Manning among the backfield players. Before we start thinking luxury items that production needs to be replaced. It would be great to have a couple of proven guys.The Little Guy

Of course it would be great to have a couple of proven guys....how do guys become proven? By getting opportunities and not letting go, this is exactly how Knowshon suddenly became a valued commodity last season. He was given the opportunity and he played like it was his last chance to stay in the league.

I agree with you in part. But think about it....last year we could not run the ball when we needed too. We just lost the guy who got the lionshare of the carries. Some say Ball is the better runner. Maybe....but obviouly not by a whole lot that it made a differnce to the FO or coaching staff. I think you have the right idea just you priority is off. We need runners before blockers. I don't share your optimism that Ball and Anderson and Hillman will be just fine. I have watched the 2013 regular season games over and over and I see nothing that's special. None of them have home run speed. Ball is a cut above the others....Anderson would do well to be as good as Lance Ball and Hillman.....I have no faith it that guy at all.The Little Guy

I think Denver did run the ball when they needed to on several occasions, especially as the season progressed; both playoff wins, both wins against KC. I think the passing game was so prolific that the improvement of the situational running game as the season progressed went unnoticed.

Look at Montee's stats in the second half of the season and you'll see a guy who routinely averaged five plus per carry; he averaged 4.7 per carry for the season. Ball showed more and more as the season progressed and I'm of the opinion that he should be a 1,200 - 1,300 yard back this season.

I don't really think you need a home run hitter and frankly there are not many of those guys around, maybe one in the league who can carry a team. Honestly who was the last team to win a Super Bowl with a home run hitter in the backfield? Probably the Rams with Faulk or Denver with TD.

Compare that with the teams that have won a Super Bowl and they could nearly all deploy a physical running game when necessary; Seattle, Baltimore, Giants. That is where Denver needs to get to beat the likes of Seattle, SF, etc.

I do agree that we need more than one, but I think option 1A is already in place with Ball and it's up to CJ or Hillman to sieze the opportunity to cement themselves as option 1B. If neither can do it, then maybe you consider a vet. Call me an optimist, but I think one of these two will establish himself as the man to backup Ball.